So you might think I’m in favor of throwing them in prison on the slightest pretext. That’s surely an appealing thought, but one of the main traits of libertarianism is a belief in the rule of law. Arbitrary arrests, trumped-up charges, and unjustified imprisonments should not exist in a civilized society (though I’m ashamed to admit that such things are happening with increasing frequency in the United States).

I raise this topic because of a story I saw in the EU Observer. The former Prime Minister of Iceland is on trial, but as far as I can tell, his only crime is to have been in charge when that nation’s financial bubble expanded and popped. Here are some details from the story.

Iceland’s former Prime Minister Geir Haarde on Monday (5 March) became the world’s first leader to be put on trial on charges of negligence over the 2008 financial crisis. Haarde, who was a premier from 2006 to 2009, is being accused of “gross negligence” in failing to prevent the collapse of Iceland’s top three banks – Glitnir, Kaupthing and Landsbanki – all heavily involved in risky investments on the US real estate market. One of the main architects of Iceland’s transformation from a fishing nation into a financial services hub, Haarde is also accused of failing to control the country’s fast-growing banks and of having withheld information indicating the country was heading for financial disaster. He faces a sentence of up to two years in prison if found guilty. “None of us realised at the time that there was something fishy within the banking system itself, as now appears to have been the case,” Haarde told the Reykjavik court on Monday. He denied all charges and said that “only in hindsight is it evident that not everything was as it should have been.”

So what crime did he commit? If economic mismanagement and/or bad timing are crimes, can we make a citizen’s arrest of Obama? Of the entire Congress (other than Ron Paul and a small handful of compatriots)?

It is a good idea to hold politicians accountable for their actions, of course, but isn’t that what elections are for?

The bottom line is that politicians are despicable creatures and part of me wants to throw most of them in jail for the things they do to reduce freedom and undermine prosperity, but after-the-fact trials are not right unless real evidence exists of a law actually being broken.

So this is one of those cases where I’m conflicted. My emotions lead me one way, but I can’t overcome my belief in the rule of law. I don’t know if Iceland uses jury trials, but I’d be a not-guilty vote unless somebody showed evidence of genuine criminal behavior on the part of the former Prime Minister.

If you enjoy pondering this type of moral dilemma, here are some previous posts dealing with rather thorny topics:

“Cigar Man” Bill Clinton, Charlie Rangel, Tim Geitner, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Eric Holder, Nan “The Harpy” Pelosi, “Worthless Warbucks” Harry Reid, Barrack “Transparent” Obumma, and the list could go on and on. What they all have in common is a series of shady deals, lies, cover ups, obfuscations, and outright criminal conduct… oh yes, and a “D” after their name. Whether or not they belong in jail is a moot point. They have no fear of it. They have willing accomplices… the media, self interested voting blocks, union bosses, crony corporate interests, and party hacks who will support anything to keep access to power.
The “public servants” with the “R’s” have some of the same things going for them, but are much more likely to be booted out and/or jailed for their transgressions. What the “R’s” lack most is a willing, massive, media and discipline in the ranks.
There are not many John McCain or Arlen Spectre types among the “D’s”.
Worse yet, the government is now able to call in a drone strike on anyone they do not like (including American citizens), and justify it! If you combine that with the language in the NDAA of 2012, “we the people” are screwed. As if Fast and Furious, the Libya intervention, ACORN, TARP, Solyndra, Keystone Pipeline, Cap and Trade by fiat, and the Panthers at the polls was not enough! (That’s just what comes up as random thoughts!)
Finally, look at the re-election rates among incumbents. Where are the consequences when you run for election in a gerrymandered district?
The law has become whatever those in power say it is.
(Depending of course upon what the definition of is is.)
Until (if ever) the average American wakes up and defends individual Liberty, and not Party, the oligarchs will rule as they see fit. And with no consequences.

I think congressmen(women) are underpaid. Each should receive $1+ million per year.

Congressional seats inspire costly and determined campaigns. This is not because people are willing to spend fortunes to serve in honor and principle. Most issues affect business interests, and most congressmen leave congress quite rich.

A truly honest and principled man is rare in Congress, because he must trade favors to make a big income. The path to success is there for the dishonest man, but not for the honest one. Pro rata, the US spends about $5 billion per congressman in taxes raised. $1 million per year is cheap for a good thinker and administrator handling that flow of wealth. Current fraud and pork costs about $5 million/year, and those other billions are misdirected. A large salary would make each congressmen more independent from bribes and schemes, and would allow people to run for congress who are not already millionaires.

A million/year would identify a congressman as a privileged member of society, as he truly is. He would be watched more closely, and any fraud would get no sympathy. We should make the job of congressman a directly profitable job to hold, for the best and honest people, rather than a job which pays that million only to the dishonest.

Dan, that’s a very interesting moral dilemma you pose and I agree with your thoughts on the matter. Most politicians are pretty evil judged on their actions, not their intentions, but even the use of the state force to “punish” the ones who are corrupt needs to be accorded under the rule of law with due process.

As for Andrew M Garland’s suggestion that we just pay politicians more money, I find it naive. There is no limit to the ambition a person with access to power will have. The problem is the over-broad power they have, not the wages they don’t otherwise earn. After all, congress critters get paid pretty well.

All funding for candidates should come from the Treasury. No other funding should be allowed under penalty of 20 years in the “Pokey”. No lobbying. No three martini lunches,etc. Make them responsible to the people not the special interests.

If politicians were held accountable for incompetence or negligence in office, we they would all be in jail. I think the legal costs to tax payers would be excessive. I would however like to see a law where politicians were fined one years salary if any of their laws were found to be unconstitutional or reversed by voters. I think that would stop many of the nanny state laws and politicians would be less likely to push the envelop when infringing on liberties.

As a general rule- common sense prevails. Except it isn’t so common.
But a few rules of thumb are in order-
“Pass it in order to know what is in it” is a clear case of deliberate malfeasance. Voting for it without knowing what is in it is a case of stupidity.
Letting Bear Stearns go under while using taxpayer funds to save AIG is influence peddling. Voting to increase taxes because you think it will bring in enough revenue to save your worthless behind- in spite of 10000 years of history proving exactly the opposite- is just dumb.